Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Tufts Daily
Where you read it first | Thursday, March 28, 2024

A new conversation about genetically modified food

Feature-Image_Place-HolderPRESLAWN

 

The public debate over genetically modified (GM) food has devolved into a scrappy shouting match unrooted from the reality of the international food system. The combative dialogue confuses the public and does little to ensure the adoption of transformative policies or technologies that are necessary to fix our broken food system. And our food system is broken—the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization report that 1.4 billion adults are overweight while 870 million people around the world do not have enough to eat.

Those who support the widespread adoption of GM technology, the manipulation of plant and animal genes to produce more efficient and resilient crops and livestock, cultivate stories of massive overpopulation and wide-scale starvation in a future world without GM food. David Stark, a vice president at Monsanto, spoke at the Friedman School last month. Before he articulated the position of one of the world’s largest investors in GM technology he told the audience, “If we had the same yields today that we had in 1950, about half of us would starve in this country. Farming continuously improves and that’s what we have to be a part of.”

The other side of the debate harvests our existing mistrust of new technology and spins tales of Frankenstein-food and apocalyptic environmental destruction. The Center for Food Safety, a national public interest group and environmental advocacy organization, writes that “each decision to introduce these biological contaminants into our environment is a dangerous game of ecological roulette. The extent of irreversible environmental damage grows greater with every new acre of GE cropland and every new GE variety.” (GE is “genetically engineered” and is used synonymously with GM.)

These two fears—that we won’t be able to produce enough food for a growing world population and that the technology we develop in the name of progress will bring about our own destruction—are inherent motivating forces in an industrial food system. Since the French Revolution, regular cycles of gluts and surpluses have caused panic in the western world. The debate over GM foods sounds a lot like the historical arguments over hybrid seeds, chemical pesticides, and tractors. As new technology develops to address a looming food shortage, skepticism that a long-term solution can be found through scientific advancement waxes and wanes in parallel.

While vitriolic rhetoric over the future food supply is hardly new, we can address the problems with our food system more productively if we engage in open, honest discussion over the pros and cons of this new technology known as genetic modification.

Advocates for the proliferation of GM food, like Monsanto, believe that biotechnology can improve productivity through increased yields and thus bring farmers more income. Climate change activist Mark Lynas insists that GM food means we won’t have to clear rainforests to plant more crops. Food companies like Pepsico support GM technology because it can make food more resilient and durable, thereby improving shelf life and decreasing waste. Innovative products like Golden Rice use biotechnology to improve the nutritional quality of food. Some promote GM food because they believe that GM crops require fewer herbicides and could allow farmers in inclement climates to grow a new variety of crops locally.

Those who seek to prohibit the proliferation of GM food, like the Center for Food Safety, believe that biotechnology can lead to the creation of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Greenpeace International views GM as a hubristic attempt to conquer nature that results in a loss of biodiversity and damages the resilience of existing ecosystems. Food companies like Nature’s Path and Clif Bar note that pesticide and herbicide use has increased with GM crops. Anti-GM advocates argue that there is a lack of independent research for a technology that is being implemented more quickly than DDT. Farmers can become entangled in a cycle of debt to large agribusinesses as a result of the monopolization of patents and agricultural inputs. GM foods could result in unforeseen allergic responses, though food processors claim to thoroughly test each item before it is sold commercially. While GM might allow farmers to grow new crops in new climates, most locavores advocate for a more historically ‘natural’ diet that doesn’t include GM food. Furthermore, if American farmers are able to grow tropical fruit, the farmers in the global south will no longer have a profitable export market.

The concerns over GM food are as real as the potential benefits. Already 88 percent of corn and 93 percent of soy grown in the United States, the two most widely planted crops, are genetically modified. Although a standard labeling and tracing system has not been implemented, most experts estimate that 70 percent of processed food on a conventional supermarket shelf contains GM material.

For us to truly debate the merits of this technology, we need more information. We don’t know when we’re eating GM food so we don’t know if it makes us sick. We don’t know the extent of gene manipulation because profit-driven agribusinesses horde patents and copyrights. We don’t know if GM seeds will increase or decrease the amount of pesticides that farmers will use in the future. If we want to slice through the rhetoric we need more transparency, accountability and patience from everyone involved in this conversation.

Before you make up your mind about this revolutionary scientific advancement, before you determine that this is a deus ex machina or cast it aside as the apple of Eden, before you start investing your money or boycotting companies, before you sign your name to a petition or vote on ballot measure, take a moment to critically examine the technology and its consequences and join a new conversation about genetically modified food.

--

Eric Siegel is a senior majoring in international relations. He can be reached at Eric.Siegel@tufts.edu.